Talk:Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Inbound linking
Poland and History of Poland don't link here yet. Wetman 17:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy
Whoever put the sentence: The Free City of Danzig voted democratically to become a part of Germany again. Democratically??
- Poles and Jews had no rights to vote
- all non-Nazi political parties were banned
- there were no referendum
Majority of citizens had choosen Nazi government in the democratic elections, yes that right. However, election of the enemies of democracy marked the end of democracy. Cautious 11:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
97% of the people in Danzig before ww2 were Germans
97% of the people in Danzig before ww2 were Germans. thats the reason why poland failed in attempt to annex it after ww1. there was no reason for the people of Danzig to vote for poland. The city was since 13th century inhabitad by germans. the culture was hanseatic northgerman. the architecture of the most important buildings is the the so called northgerman Backsteingothik. there was never a signifikant polnish mayority existing in this city. that Danzig should be part of poland was the idea of some polnish extrem rightwing nationalists as part of the idea to create a greater poland. Completly ignoring the right of national selfdetermination of the people of Danzig.
[edit] Map?
What, no map? :o) — OwenBlacker 21:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "in contrast"
"... Poles living on the German re-annexed territories were deprived of their human rights, and faced serious persecutions. By contrast, after World War II Germans living east of the Oder-Neisse Line were expelled to Germany..." The use of the word "contrast" here suggests that the Poles discussed here would have preferred to have been expelled, since the Germans were expelled and that is contrasted favourably with the non-expulsion (but persecution) of the Poles. The article thus claims, in effect, that the Poles were persecuted, in "contrast" to the Germans, who were presumably not persecuted because they were expelled instead. Either expulsions are bad things or good things, I would think. The fact that the article suggests expulsions of one ethnicity is bad (earlier in the article) but of another ethnicity is good makes no sense to me.Bdell555 21:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
